Printable View
i looked at the map and i have a few questions.
1. are the large faction(hre,byzantium,turks,egyptians) going to just demolish the little factions or will there be something stopping them?
2. it seems like spain is open to take from the rebels. will castile just easily dominate iberia so quickly?
3. are the sahara and arabia provinces because they had no real settlements.
nice map. its so much better to see a decent map from vanilla. vanillas map really sucked.
HRE has scripted revolting in northern Italy. Byzantium and Turks are facing at Manzikert right at the beginning, so I'd guess they both get somewhat crippled no matter the outcome.
i knew they wouldnt leave that issue untouched but what about egypt? im guessing that the turks are preparing to converge on their territory(thats what happened histroically).
Egypt will probably have their hands full with the crusades...
I think hre will be the tough one. You have to balance those scripted rebellions so that the empire doesn't lose too many soldiers and land, and also to present player with a challenge...
the hre empire will be hard because if they are weakend too much they will collapse easily but if there not then they will dominate.
Turks are quite powerful between 1050s - 1092 so its only fair to give them a great starting position, however, like most Muslim empires, regionalism is a problem within the empire even in times of greatness. The Turks have to keep an eye out on their Qara-Khanid vassals in Transoxiana who could attack them in the rear while the Turks try and expand to the west.Quote:
. are the large faction(hre,byzantium,turks,egyptians) going to just demolish the little factions or will there be something stopping them?
Egyptians in 1071 is having a rotten time too, rebellions in Syria, Palestine and the Hejaz will keep them occupied, a disobedient Ghulam army in Cairo poses a worry for the current Caliph. Famines also recur frequently in this time period giving EGYPT a very serious problem internally. Yes, they will be quite vulnerable to the Turks.
Little factions in the beginning (like Georgia and Serbia) need not fear bigger factions as they are either scripted as allies or vassals. They're not entirely defensely either considering that the Byzantine troops stationed in the Balkans are crap and the fact that Georgia has a decent army at this time as well.
Southern Spain is in the grip of squabblinh Taifa factions, historically, this does make them open to Christian invasions from the North. However, this weakness led them to historically call in the Moors from Morocco as well, so it works out. Perhaps a scripted landing party of Moorish troops in 1085.Quote:
2. it seems like spain is open to take from the rebels. will castile just easily dominate iberia so quickly?
Yes, big useless provinces, anyone would be stupid to take them but smart to use them as places to attack unsuspecting provinces. I suppose if ur the Egyptians and ur keen on capturing the Caliphal base of Baghdad you could take a short cut through the Arabian desrt and pounce on them there. But you'd also have ti fight desert tribes who infest these areas.Quote:
3. are the sahara and arabia provinces because they had no real settlements.
Instead of doing this why not do what EB does and 'ally' rebel cities with nearby factions? If Castile-Leon defeats one of the Taifa states the AI Moors auto-declare war on them...however the player could maybe have a choice with the advisor popping up "do you want to declare war on the aggressors? Press the show me how button etc..."Quote:
Southern Spain is in the grip of squabblinh Taifa factions, historically, this does make them open to Christian invasions from the North. However, this weakness led them to historically call in the Moors from Morocco as well, so it works out. Perhaps a scripted landing party of Moorish troops in 1085.
can we give the influence to the calife as the pope for the catholique?
thanks for informing me :2thumbsup: on this since it was my major concern with the mod. however, i have another question how will the invasions by the almohad and almoravids be represented?
will moorish armies emerge in spain in 1086,1088, and 1093 to represent the almoravids? for the almohads could moorish armies emerge in spain in 1195(battle of alarcos) and 1212(battle of las navas de Tolosa) to represent their campaigns in spain?
Moors will probably have a similar system to the Egyptians.
We have system in place to enact the changing of dynasties, thats why we keep the generic names like the Moors to relfect the Moorish dynasties. Be they Almoravids or Almohads, they were Moors.
Yes, scripted landing parties will be part of the plan, if this can be implemented, it wwould be great, introduces another element to gameplay.
Not too sure of scripted battles though, much easier when its near the start date.
I've got a guy who made an AI diplomacy mod, I'll have to contact him on details like that.Quote:
Instead of doing this why not do what EB does and 'ally' rebel cities with nearby factions? If Castile-Leon defeats one of the Taifa states the AI Moors auto-declare war on them...however the player could maybe have a choice with the advisor popping up "do you want to declare war on the aggressors? Press the show me how button etc..."
playing with the muslims jsut sounds better everyday!:2thumbsup:
naahh, good old christian fellas rocks ;-). That was written that crusaders could handle superiority of muslims 10 on 1 crusader. So the choice is simple ( but in game they r nearly equivalent and thats not fair :sweatdrop: )
10 on 1? I have to wonder, where on earth do you get your information
www.christiansrockmuslims.com ? or what... because seriously, that is sooo not funny.
Ever heard of Ilghazi? Balak? Imad ed-Din Zengi?
What about Roger of Aleppo? Who was killed along side half the norman knights in the holy land, in ONE battle. A place still known as the Field of Blood.
what about the peoples crusade? Wiped out to almost a man.
Or, even, what about all the other fifty times someone did something stupid, or did something smart, and got paid off for it.
One on one, and I guarantee you the battles between any given crusader or muslim are pretty even.
The main advantage crusader knights had, was when they charged. They 'seemed' invincible, and when they stuck together they usually fought well.
Problems? Their muslem counterparts usually did not give the crusaders a target, and usually broke up the crusading charges and took them down individually where their armor became more of a hindrance than an aid.
Read your history books dude.
Thats like in Kingdom of heaven ( movie ) look at those fine armoured knights and those poor armoured arabs.... look at them and compare which were better... and when the arabs had advantage - 30 on 1.....
And crusaders done lot of mistakes..... they fought like fanatics......
( and they were ), so it wasnt only matter of armour, but also in tactics.
KOH was certainly not based on historical accuracy... I wrote a term paper on its inaccuracies.
But it does display some things well. Though you obviously did not read from it what was true.
As in, the limited armor they wore was not due to inferior quality, but rather their knowledge of the terrain, and heat, and how to fight there.
The crusaders/defenders fought in a small gap where they were able to negate the numbers of the arabs. This is almost a historical consistency, fight where you can diminish the enemies advantages and give your own troops more.
The armor the arabs wore (not mentioning the quality), was due to the heat, and the mobility it gave them.
Please throw out your ignorant and completely biased views on this. Please.
(and before someone responds to me to do the same, realize that I have been trained as a historian to recognize, and accept my own biases: of which I have several mainly dealing with 'supposed' knowledge of history through movies, and books.)
Ignorant? lol... I never said sanything against Egypt or arabs.... I played as Egypt and its one of my favorites.... Its the same and logical with knowledge of terrain and other things like USA in Vietnam. But compare single soldier of USA and Vietnam.... the USA ( and they rnt my favorite....trust me) were better equiped and trained....they had better weapons, helmets, better organized....but in jungle they r useless ( not so useless but Vietnamesse had big advantage ).... so place crusader against normal arab and see. ( without hot weather, without marching half a day in desert etc. )
ok, now your comparing a war fought in the 1960's-70s, not including the French, to warfare 900-500 years previously?
mmmm I think this says anything anyone needs to know about your credibility.
Try RESEARCH. Look at the People's Crusade, the first 'recognized' crusade into muslim territory. Led, kind of by no one, but theoretically Rainald & Peter the Hermit. Slaughtered. Slaughtered. Slaughtered. Oh, and converted to Islam to avoid SLAUGHTER.
I already mentioned the Field of Blood I believe, better trained, better equipped? Can you give me any sort of statistic or evidence? What about the fact that a drunkard was able to marshal the forces of Syria together to destroy half the norman contigent of crusaders? According to Kemal Al-Din, only 20 franks escaped, and only 20 muslems dead.
Balak, that guy i mentioned earlier? He was known as "the Raging Dragon", and filled many pages of Fulcher's writings. He managed to reconquer almost all of the crusading states. He died due to an arrow wound during a siege.
If you recognized known of the names above.. let me know and I'll simply stop arguing because it'll be pointless.
You r realy funny I told you, my comparing in different age of warfare was only an example....
Look on single crusader with big shield spear and long sword.....and on poor arab with "stick and straw shield".
Yes, the crusader attack was based on charge, but that was very efective.
Crusader cavalry vs. Arab Cavalry in the same numbers..... that crusader charge will crush them to the ground.
Why crusaders hold Jerusalem so long? And invading those regions with much smaller numbers than the native wariors.
Before united Egypt with Saladin, the Crusaders were untouchable, and few thousands of soldiers cant hold the land against hundred thousands muslims ofcourse.
ok, so I take it you do not recognize any of those names. Stick and straw shield! funny man, you are a comedian I take it?
Jesus, H. Christ.
Stick and straw?? It is a common misconception that Moslem factions were under equipped due to the fact they did not follow the European ideal and of course the determining factor, ie climate, is so willingly overlooked.
Kingdom of Heaven did at least portray the Moslems as cultured people and the so called 'Christian Crusaders' as a bunch of murdering scum. A certain element of accuracy
......Orda
it was in double apostrophes ( quotation marks ) so it was ment metphorically
;-)
and to Orda khan -
Yes, I know that egyptian culture was more civilised than european till 13-14 century. But holy fact is that european knights were better.
And they hold Jerusalem for a hundred years.
in my point of view the crusaders had better soldiers even though they were heavily outnumbered. this was proven in coutnless numbers of battles, though sometimes the muslims did have better soldiers.
however, in war it always comes down to who has the better commanders and the muslims had some of the best commanders in the middle ages. you cant deny the greatness of zengi,saladin, and baibars. so, the christains had better soldiers(man for man) but the muslims had more soldiers and better commanders. so who wins? like in history, the one with the best commander.
I dont know where did you get those "better commanders"... it was only foolishness of fanatic crusaders like templars or Knights of st John ( hospitallers ) for their baldheaded attacks.
what do you mean that you dont get it? its simple saladin,zengi, and baibars were all better then anyone the crusaders had(other then richard).
yes, Saladin - great consolidator (and owner of hundred thousands soldiers).
I like Saladin, he was awsome leader, but I think this war wins numbers not his geniality, and waste of cristian soldiers.
rofl, I vote this thread for the win. :dizzy2:
the great comander is d.afonso henriques the hows conquer portugal and expluse the mors
Good thing someone talks about Portugal because there is an error on the name it should be Portucale and it wan't a Kingdom it was a Condado, but that's ok.
Anyways what I ment to say is that there is one province missing in the southwest of the Iberian Peninsula. Its name is Algarve and it was the last resistence that the mors gave to Portugal, before it was conquered by the previous. It had a lot of historical significance because it was know to be hard to conquer, when Portucale conquered it they had their name replaced for Reino de Portvgal e Algarves.
I have look the map. It seems really great, greater than the original map of M2TW.
There is however, I think, two mistakes:
First, there is too much provinces in british islands, especially for scotland and for Eire (or Ireland). Number of provinces for english part is OK. Scotland and Ireland were small and powerless countries, with poor lands. Give scotland 4 potential provinces (and three at the beginning) makes it too much powerful, as powerful as british (5 provinces, 4 at beginning)..... I think scotland and Eire should be made of two provinces, each. Highlands and lowlands for scotland by example...
The second mistake is the huge difference between France and HRE.... If you choose to give those "nations" the lands directly controlled by the king at the beginning, you should give them BOTH few provinces at the beginning.... BOTH are indeeed feodal kingdoms. If you choose to give them all provinces controlled indirectly by the kings (feodality) you should give them BOTH all provinces.
For my part I think the first option is better, but then HRE you made up is much much much .... more powerful than in real history.
Except this, your map is perfect....
Best regards,
Dumbelvador.